Agrana Fruit US v. Ingredientrade Inc.
Agrana Fruit US, Inc. v. Ingredientrade Inc.; Ingredientrade Inc. v. 888 Organic Exporter Co., Ltd.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-10147
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Agrana Fruit US, Inc. v. Ingredientrade Inc., Judge Stein granted Ingredientrade’s request to serve 888 Organic by email as an alternative method.
Ingredientrade Inc. and 888 Organic Exporter Co., Ltd.; the order determines how Ingredientrade may serve 888 Organic with the third-party summons and complaint.
What happened
In Agrana Fruit US, Inc. v. Ingredientrade Inc.; Ingredientrade Inc. v. 888 Organic Exporter Co., Ltd., Ingredientrade asked the court for permission to serve 888 Organic, a Thai corporation, through an alternative method.
Ingredientrade had previously sought permission to serve 888 Organic by email, but the court denied that request because Ingredientrade had not first tried conventional service and had not shown that email would satisfy basic fairness requirements. Ingredientrade later made several unsuccessful service attempts in Thailand and personally delivered the papers to 888 Organic’s director, who acknowledged receiving them.
Judge Gary Stein granted Ingredientrade’s renewed request to serve 888 Organic by email at sales.auranic@gmail.com. The court found that Ingredientrade had made reasonable service efforts and that the email address was likely to reach 888 Organic and give it notice of the case.
The detailed version
- Agrana Fruit US v. Ingredientrade Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-10147
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 31, 2025
Background
Ingredientrade Inc., the defendant and third-party plaintiff, renewed its request for permission to serve 888 Organic Exporter Co., Ltd., a Thai corporation, through an alternative method. Ingredientrade proposed sending the Third-Party Summons and Third-Party Complaint by email to sales.auranic@gmail.com.
The court had denied Ingredientrade’s earlier request without prejudice because Ingredientrade had not attempted conventional service and had not shown that the proposed email method would satisfy due process. Thailand is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, so that convention did not provide an available method of service in this case.
Service Efforts
After the earlier ruling, Ingredientrade attempted service at 888 Organic’s last known Bangkok address on June 24 and July 3, 2025, but found the premises behind a locked gate. Ingredientrade’s Thai counsel also communicated with Saranya Pintachua, a minority shareholder, who initially said she would cooperate in receiving the papers but later failed to confirm a new date.
On August 13, 2025, Ingredientrade’s Thai counsel hand-delivered the Third-Party Summons and Third-Party Complaint to Songyos Srirat, identified as 888 Organic’s sole authorized director and majority shareholder, at 888 Organic’s registered office in Bangkok. Srirat acknowledged receiving the documents. 888 Organic nevertheless did not file an answer or other response. Ingredientrade maintained that this hand delivery did not itself constitute valid service under the federal rules and therefore continued to seek permission for alternative service.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) allows a court to order service on a person in another country by means not prohibited by an international agreement. Courts generally require a reasonable attempt to serve the defendant and circumstances showing that court intervention is necessary. The alternative method must also be reasonably calculated to notify the defendant of the case and give it an opportunity to respond.
Judge Stein found those requirements satisfied. Ingredientrade had made multiple good-faith attempts to serve 888 Organic, and the company’s resistance to service made court intervention appropriate. The court also found that Thai law and no international agreement prohibited email service.
The court further found that the proposed email address was likely to reach 888 Organic because Pintachua had recently responded to communications sent to that address concerning 888 Organic. The court also noted that 888 Organic already had actual notice because the summons and complaint had been hand-delivered to Srirat.
Disposition
The court granted Ingredientrade’s request to serve 888 Organic by alternative means under Rule 4(f)(3), specifically the proposed email method. This order addressed service of process and did not decide the underlying claims between the parties.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.